Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

What about the poster child Cygnus X-1. I thought that was too dense to be a neutron star. Cheers On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:24:02PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: I just looked at. If black holes don't exist it's going to be a problem explaining what it is at the center of the Milky Way (and other

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:22:53AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It is implied by Russell's statement materialism is perfectly

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:43PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: John argues that consciousness has real world consequences in terms

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

There are objects that are way too massive to be anything but black holes (if our current understanding of general relativity is correct). I believe the core of M104 (the Sombrero galaxy) is about one billion solar masses, for example. But to be fair, I'm not sure exactly what is being claimed in

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

I suspect you meant any decision is often better than making *none *at all :-) No decision is the wrong decision as I sometimes like to tell my children. Even more so when it comes to things like climate change. On 25 September 2014 19:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed,

Re: The Cartoon Guide to Löb's Theorem

On 24 Sep 2014, at 12:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I still don't know what this theorem add to common sense. I mean, what it add out of his universe of formalizations in order to better formalize the obvious. It is not obvious at all. Replace p by false, and you get the incompleteness

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:22:53AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Platonist

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: The trouble I have, is that there are obvious ways of achieving the same ends that don't involves consciousness I don't see how you could know that. Other than by observing behavior how do you know what does and

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Evolution is only interested in intelligent behavior because only that and not consciousness helps get genes into the next generation. So how did consciousness manage to produce at least one being (me) that's conscious?

RE: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:24 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper? I just looked at. If black

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Your clearly ignore the entire field of philosophy of mind. You almost make that sound like a bad thing. Not all analog machine can be computable, Yes some things are not computable. Turing proved that not all numbers are

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 9/25/2014 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: The trouble I have, is that there are obvious ways of achieving the same ends that don't involves consciousness I don't see how you

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 9/25/2014 10:09 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Evolution is only interested in intelligent behavior because only that and not consciousness helps get genes into the next generation.

Re: Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

And what of the singularity theorized as the initial state of the Big Bang?-- Original message-- From:LizRDate:Wed, 9/24/2014 5:21 PMTo:everything-list@googlegroups.com;Subject:Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?This appears to be saying

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

The singularity is an inference from general relativity extrapolated to arbitrarily short distances and high densities...where it cannot apply because it's not consistent with quantum mechanics. When your equation predicts a singularity, it just means you've gone beyond the domain of

RE: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

Black Holes do exist and they are at the center of each galaxy and they continuously consume parts of their galaxies, destroying protons and anti-protons and releasing neutrino photons to provide the gravity of their galaxy. (See Chapter XX, Black Holes and Gravity, in Tronnies, The Source of

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:42 PM Subject: Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper? The singularity is an inference from general relativity

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:22:53AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Russell Standish

Re: Save the bees!

On 9/25/2014 4:02 PM, LizR wrote: Silently, billions of bees are dying off and our entire food chain is in danger. Bees don't just make honey -- they are a giant, humble workforce, pollinating 75% of growing plants. In five days the US could move to ban the toxic pesticides that are killing

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

On 26 September 2014 09:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Black Holes do exist and they are at the center of each galaxy and they continuously consume parts of their galaxies, destroying protons and anti-protons and releasing neutrino photons to provide the gravity of their

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

On 26 September 2014 08:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The singularity is an inference from general relativity extrapolated to arbitrarily short distances and high densities...where it cannot apply because it's not consistent with quantum mechanics. When your equation predicts a

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Well done for being obtuse! The platonically malleable urstuff is usually taken to be integer arithmetic, although any system capable of universal computation will do, such as Bruno's combinators example. You

RE: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

Liz – that was my same reaction, truly massive things are astronomically observed to be out there (at the centers of big galaxies at least – don’t know if star clusters and satellite galaxies also have smaller analogues at their centers – or not?). The thrust of this paper – from what I gather

RE: Save the bees!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb On 9/25/2014 4:02 PM, LizR wrote: Silently, billions of bees are dying off and our entire food chain is in danger. Bees don't just make honey -- they are a giant, humble workforce,

Re: Save the bees!

Honey bees are the poster children, like pandas and polar bears. However don't let that stop you signing the petition and spreading the word. On 26 September 2014 14:21, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

Could the idea be that a massive object is formed but that it can't ever quite collapse into a BH? I read the original papers but they're a teensy bit over my head. On 26 September 2014 14:07, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Liz – that was my

Re: Do they or don't they exist? Is anyone familiar with this paper?

On 9/25/2014 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 September 2014 08:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The singularity is an inference from general relativity extrapolated to arbitrarily short distances and high densities...where it cannot apply because it's

[n.wildber...@unsw.edu.au: Video of Jim and Norman's debate on infinity]

I mentioned earlier this morning about the interesting seminar/debate about infinity. Well it's now on Youtube. See below. - Forwarded message from Norman Wildberger n.wildber...@unsw.edu.au - Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:20:26 + From: Norman Wildberger n.wildber...@unsw.edu.au To: